Guys, seriously.. Take up knitting or something. Arguing the letter of the rules in a system whose rules it is generally agreed upon are labyrinthine and confusing as written; is generally kvetching for the sake of kvetching, no?

Take a look at my crazy monk strangler character and offer some suggestions, instead.

I don't really care about this debate, but it does raise an interesting question of how much a drone can carry. As far as I know, this is never explicitly spelled out, but there are enough random hints that we can extrapolate.

Starting assumptions (which seem reasonable, but is not explicitly stated)-A drones carrying capacity is directly linked to its body.A flying drone can lift off with 1/3 of the carrying capacity of what a ground based drone can carry. (based upon a character being able to lift over their head 1/3 of their maximum carrying capacity, pg. 138 SR4A)The carrying capacity of a drone does vary with size as well as body, overwise the statements in the rules don't work out.

Things we know-Page 102 Arsenal- A medium sized drone cannot carry a metahuman, but it might be able to carry a small dwarf. They have a body of 3. (with some exceptions)Page 102 Arsenal- A large sized drone can carry a metahuman adult riding on it, but not a troll. They have a body of 4 (with some exceptions)Page 72 SR4A- An average dwarf ways 54 kg. So we have an upper bound on a medium sized drones carrying capacity. I will further assume that a "small" dwarf ways 45 kg, because it makes calculations easier, but 50 kg might be a better approximation. Page 72 SR4A- An average orc weighs 128 kg, so a large drone can carry at least this much. A troll weighs 300 kg, so a large drone cannot carry 300 kg. I will guess that it's maximum carrying capacity is 160 kg (again for ease of calculation).

This means that a medium drone can carry 15 kg/per point of body and a large drone can carry 40 kg/per point of body. We'll have to extrapolate down for smaller drones, but we know that it should be less than 15 kg/per point of body. To make numbers easy, I would guess 10 kg/per point of body for small, 5 kg/per point of body mini and a fixed value of 1 kg (or less) for a microdrone. These are of course open for debate.

This means that a Fly-Spy for example could carry 5 kilograms with it while grounded and take off with about 2 kg. There are no weighs listed for guns, but I think it's safe to assume that just based on lifting capacity a fly spy is not getting off the ground with anything heavier than a light hand gun. Of course it would probably end up with a lot of the penalties from a misfit weapon size (pg. 84 arsenal) and probably at a minus much larger than the -2 suggested for dwarfs firing human sized weapons.

I don't really care about this debate, but it does raise an interesting question of how much a drone can carry. As far as I know, this is never explicitly spelled out, but there are enough random hints that we can extrapolate.

Starting assumptions (which seem reasonable, but is not explicitly stated)-A drones carrying capacity is directly linked to its body.A flying drone can lift off with 1/3 of the carrying capacity of what a ground based drone can carry. (based upon a character being able to lift over their head 1/3 of their maximum carrying capacity, pg. 138 SR4A)The carrying capacity of a drone does vary with size as well as body, overwise the statements in the rules don't work out.

Suspension type should matter too. Just for ground-mobile drones (and larger vehicles): walkers would carry theleast; wheeled drones would carry moderate amounts (modified by number of wheels "within reason"), and tracked crawlers would carry the most.

QUOTE

This means that a medium drone can carry 15 kg/per point of body and a large drone can carry 40 kg/per point of body. We'll have to extrapolate down for smaller drones, but we know that it should be less than 15 kg/per point of body. To make numbers easy, I would guess 10 kg/per point of body for small, 5 kg/per point of body mini and a fixed value of 1 kg (or less) for a microdrone. These are of course open for debate.

This means that a Fly-Spy for example could carry 5 kilograms with it while grounded and take off with about 2 kg. There are no weighs listed for guns, but I think it's safe to assume that just based on lifting capacity a fly spy is not getting off the ground with anything heavier than a light hand gun. Of course it would probably end up with a lot of the penalties from a misfit weapon size (pg. 84 arsenal) and probably at a minus much larger than the -2 suggested for dwarfs firing human sized weapons.

Probably not more than a holdout. IF that. (Then again, a Fly Spy is too small for a Weapon Mount anyway, as I was reminded upthread).

Jesus christ, no. It does not matter HOW you mount anything on anything. The rules give the outline, which has to be followed. The rest is FLUFF.

If geckotape a gun to your drone, it is still a weapon mount and it works like a weapon mount. (Well you have to connect it to be able to fire it anyway)

It all works the same it is just the looks you are going for.

It also does not matter how you armor your car. You may tape bullet prove vest around it or you can go "professional" or total A-Team. Just your flavor, the rules are the same for everybody. (If you have certain materials for free, it can cut back on cost but NOTHING ELSE)

@thoryaDoes not really work, because they broke their own rules. So not all medium drones have a body of 3 or even 4.If you only go with the body, you might end up with really silly results...

Per the weight of handguns and flying drones carrying them, coincidentally I had to look up the weight of a common handgun for geekish purposes not related to Shadowrun. Turns out a Glock weighs just about 1kg. So I can't imagine any of the standard pistols weighing more than 2.

Yep... 110% Vindication that the Text in Arsenal is Wrong... Congratulations.

So, you're saying the people who wrote the rules of the game are wrong, and in fact have now been wrong twice in the same book (the pre-SR4A publication of Arsenal and the updated post-SR4A PDF publication of Arsenal) .... but somehow your personal preferences and opinions are magically "right" ...?

I'm sorry. The ludicrousness of that sort of (apparent) claim momentarily overwhelmed my sense of decorum. I'll go back and shorten the laughter-block (but not remove it; that would IMO be dishonest of me), so it's a little less in-your-face rude.

And I do find it ludicrous to sugest that a rule which is plainly and explicitly worded to replace a prior rule, is wrong because it is different from what it replaces.

If someone says "I don't like it, and in my home games I don't use that rule from Arsenal" ... hey, fine, the whole book is optional after all. But to suggest it is objectively wrong, even when Arsenal isin use? That makes me want to laugh. And laugh. And laugh.

I am saying that the people who wrote Arsenal did not take into account the rules in the base book for Body Limits for Weapon Mounts, which had ALREADY BEEN ESTABISHED, as was re-iterated in a Book Pyblished Years after Arsenal was.... And the error was further compounded by the Arsenal Proofreaders, who did not catch and correct it. The fact that it is in not 1, not 2, but 3 Print Runs of the Arsenal Printing notwithstandfing. No one bothered to catch and correct it, as is so often the case with CGL Products. This has been an ongoing complaint from many. So there really is no need for you, _Pax_, to get so high and mighty about my stance. They made an error, and have refused to correct it. What else is new?

The vast majority of additional rules presented in the books serve to place limits on rules already in existance. For a Rule to be removed, with absolutely no reason, is a step backwards, and I see it as an error. I am not unique in that regard (though I may be so in this partiuclar case).

I am saying that the people who wrote Arsenal did not take into account the rules in the base book for Body Limits for Weapon Mounts, which had ALREADY BEEN ESTABISHED, as was re-iterated in a Book Pyblished Years after Arsenal was....

Okay, look buddy. Go back and read the page I posted above. I want you to actually read it this time.

Because, here's a big thing you missed: the page I posted, is AFTER updating the book for the Anniversary Edition. Specifically, it says:

Core Rules Vehicle ModificationsThe rigger adaptation and weapon mount vehicle modificationsfrom the core rules (p. 348, SR4A) are replaced by themodifications of the same name described in this list.

See that big blue bit? That's important.

QUOTE

For a Rule to be removed, with absolutely no reason, is a step backwards, and I see it as an error.

You don't have to like it.

But you should not tell people they are wrong when they *gasp* actually follow the rules as written. Any deviation from those rules is a House Rule, and your house rules do not trump the RAW. And as written, Arsenal's "round down" replaces the core books "round up". Not just by accident, either. Nor just a proofreading error. That entire paragraph makes it an INTENTIONAL change.

The paragraph cited would never have been included, if it was not an intentional change - a change that did take the core rulebook's wording into account, and then decided to change it.

Again, you don't have tolike it. But when discussing RAW legality? Or playing/GMing in a RAW environment - for example, official Shadowrun Missions events at a convention? You do have to follow it.

I am saying that the people who wrote Arsenal did not take into account the rules in the base book for Body Limits for Weapon Mounts, which had ALREADY BEEN ESTABISHED, as was re-iterated in a Book Pyblished Years after Arsenal was.... And the error was further compounded by the Arsenal Proofreaders, who did not catch and correct it. The fact that it is in not 1, not 2, but 3 Print Runs of the Arsenal Printing notwithstandfing. No one bothered to catch and correct it, as is so often the case with CGL Products. This has been an ongoing complaint from many. So there really is no need for you, _Pax_, to get so high and mighty about my stance. They made an error, and have refused to correct it. What else is new?

The vast majority of additional rules presented in teh books serve to place limits on rules already in existance. For a Rule to be removed, with absolutely no reason, is a step backwards, and I see it as an error. I am not unique in that regard (though I may be so in this partiuclar case).

Rules are often removed if an additional book goes into more details... Best example here is Runners Companion. If you choose to take the Karma generation system, you REPLACE the BP generation system.

It has to be handled that way sometimes, because easy and short rules do not always fit into the extended versions. (And honestly: It is most of the time a MUCH better Idea to consider writing NEW rules, than to try to make it fit. There are lot of cases, when they just tried to add and created a lot of confusion and bad rules. WAR! is an example of this as is Runners Companion (Free Spirit/Infected rules/Lifestyle is not really optimal neither))

Okay, look buddy. Go back and read the page I posted above. I want you to actually read it this time.

Because, here's a big thing you missed: the page I posted, is AFTER updating the book for the Anniversary Edition. Specifically, it says:

Core Rules Vehicle ModificationsThe rigger adaptation and weapon mount vehicle modificationsfrom the core rules (p. 348, SR4A) are replaced by themodifications of the same name described in this list.

See that big blue bit? That's important.

You don't have to like it.

But you should not tell people they are wrong when they *gasp* actually follow the rules as written. Any deviation from those rules is a House Rule, and your house rules do not trump the RAW. And as written, Arsenal's "round down" replaces the core books "round up". Not just by accident, either. Nor just a proofreading error. That entire paragraph makes it an INTENTIONAL change.

The paragraph cited would never have been included, if it was not an intentional change - a change that did take the core rulebook's wording into account, and then decided to change it.

Again, you don't have to like it. But when discussing RAW legality? Or playing/GMing in a RAW environment - for example, official Shadowrun Missions events at a convention? You do have to follow it.

That big blue bit, that you so painstakingly indicated, is irrelevant if the text is wrong to start with. I read it and still think they did not do their homework, and that it is wrong. Making an assumption that I am illiterate and a moron does not become you. And that is exactly how you are coming across (at least to me)... Grow up... This is a Discussion/debate, not a penis waving contest.

As for the INTENTIONAL Change? I disagree, I see someone not doing their homework, and when writing up the detail for Size, chose to use the word "up" instead of the word "down" in direct contravention of the General rule already in place. The Rule is wrong, because the writer had a less than perfect understanding of the General rule already in place. And I believe that it is wrong. Insulting me is not going to win you any arguments.

Here is the quote to show you...

QUOTE (Arsenal)

As a general rule, one weapon mount can be added to a vehicle for every 3 points of Body it has, rounded up.

Now, you can assume that was an intentional change. I do not. The books are so rife with these types of errors, that I have to immediately question this one. It is a FUNDAMENTAL Change to the General Rule already in place. Here, let me show you that one....

QUOTE (SR4(A))

Vehicles may be equipped with a number of weapon mounts equal to their Body ÷ 3 (round down).

It is quite funny, actually, in that when Draco18s challenged you to PROVE that it was not an error (as you claim), you trot out the very book, and the very text, that is claimed to be in error. That is not proof, and I think that you know it. If the assertion is that the book is in error, you cannot refer to the same book called into question to settle the debate. Instead, you should probably look elsewhere to find that proof. Amazingly enough, there is a book that has a rule in place to see what the intent is.

But since we are not going to agree here, it is probably a waste of our time to continue this debate, unless you are willing to be civil about it. So, I think I am done here. Have a great day.

Rules are often removed if an additional book goes into more details... Best example here is Runners Companion. If you choose to take the Karma generation system, you REPLACE the BP generation system.

It has to be handled that way sometimes, because easy and short rules do not always fit into the extended versions. (And honestly: It is most of the time a MUCH better Idea to consider writing NEW rules, than to try to make it fit. There are lot of cases, when they just tried to add and created a lot of confusion and bad rules. WAR! is an example of this as is Runners Companion (Free Spirit/Infected rules/Lifestyle is not really optimal neither))

No Doubt, but this is not a case of needing to write new rules to make this fit. You have a Body limit already in place. Anything with a Body of less than 3 cannot have a weapon mount added through Modification. Why, exactly, should this be contravened? There is absolutely no need for such, and when it changes, you have to ask yourself why?

The main rules (SR4(A) already have Body 1 Production Drones with Weapons on them (The Lonestar I-Ball is a prime example), so you do not need to add rules to allow production models with weapons on them. There is no need for that, as they are already allowed. Changing the rules, in this case, is not necessary. And adding a weapon to something that is not designed to allow for that addition is ludicrous, because it is not designed for that. Thus the original Body 3+ Restriction (Providing enough possible excess room for a Weapon mount). So, the only reason to allow such things in a new book is because either someone did not know the rules already, or they think they need some new functionality (to add a weapon mount to something that was never intended to be space for). Since the functionality (Weapons on Drones smaller than Body 3) is ALREADY THERE for production models (for those that have allowed such in their design), then you cannot use that as an excuse. You are only left with the writer's being unfamiliar with the nuances of the rules.

The main rules (SR4(A) already have Body 1 Production Drones with Weapons on them (The Lonestar I-Ball is a prime example), so you do not need to add rules to allow production models with weapons on them. There is no need for that, as they are already allowed. Changing the rules, in this case, is not necessary. And adding a weapon to something that is not designed to allow for that addition is ludicrous, because it is not designed for that. Thus the original Body 3+ Restriction (Providing enough possible excess room for a Weapon mount). So, the only reason to allow such things in a new book is because either someone did not know the rules already, or they think they need some new functionality (to add a weapon mount to something that was never intended to be space for). Since the functionality (Weapons on Drones smaller than Body 3) is ALREADY THERE for production models (for those that have allowed such in their design), then you cannot use that as an excuse. You are only left with the writer's being unfamiliar with the nuances of the rules.

Or you know, maybe they wanted to allow 2 weapon mounts(or one reinforced) on vehicles with Body of 4+ and 3(or 1+1) on vehicles with with 7+ Body and so on.

That big blue bit, that you so painstakingly indicated, is irrelevant if the text is wrong to start with. I read it and still think they did not do their homework, and that it is wrong.

The problem is that you're now talking about how YOU think the rules should be.

Not about how the rules ARE.

This isn't even a discussion on a questionable wording or grey area. The text is black and white. That you disagree with it is a separate discussion and not especially moot in a conversation on min-maxing.

Min-maxing discussions rely on commonly understood sets of rules, which most often manifest as RAW. Theoretical discussions on the intent of the designers is well and interesting, but ultimately subjective and imprecise.

If this WERE a thread on the nature of rules intent or the like, sure. But it's not.

The problem is that you're now talking about how YOU think the rules should be.

Not about how the rules ARE.

This isn't even a discussion on a questionable wording or grey area. The text is black and white. That you disagree with it is a separate discussion and not especially moot in a conversation on min-maxing.

Min-maxing discussions rely on commonly understood sets of rules, which most often manifest as RAW. Theoretical discussions on the intent of the designers is well and interesting, but ultimately subjective and imprecise.

If this WERE a thread on the nature of rules intent or the like, sure. But it's not.

To make it worse, the ferret is a prime example of a drone with a lower body than "should" be allowed to utilize weapon mounts being told it usually has them - in direct violation of TJ's theoretical House-Rule. You can explain it away using mental gymnastics, but the easier way to explain it is that the rules for vehicle mods in Arsenal supersede those in SR4A, like it says on page 131 of Arsenal.

Did I miss something with the Ferret? I thought that RAW they actually can't mount weapons by Arsenal's rules because they're minidrones, and that you have to give them a special exception based on the fluff.

Did I miss something with the Ferret? I thought that RAW they actually can't mount weapons by Arsenal's rules because they're minidrones, and that you have to give them a special exception based on the fluff.

The problem is that you're now talking about how YOU think the rules should be.

Not about how the rules ARE.

This isn't even a discussion on a questionable wording or grey area. The text is black and white. That you disagree with it is a separate discussion and not especially moot in a conversation on min-maxing.

Min-maxing discussions rely on commonly understood sets of rules, which most often manifest as RAW. Theoretical discussions on the intent of the designers is well and interesting, but ultimately subjective and imprecise.

If this WERE a thread on the nature of rules intent or the like, sure. But it's not.

-k

Which is indeed where I started, KarmaInferno. I always (Pretty sure, I can go back and verify that) conteded that it was my opinion, and my belief, that the text ("Up" vs. "Down") in Arsenal was wrong. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

EDIT: Seems as if I danced around actually SAYING it was my opinion for a while, and it was not until post 89 that it was clarified at as an opinion. I see I used the word FACT at one point, so I can see the confusion, and I apologize. The point remains, however. And I still stand by it. I believe that the Arsenal Rounding text is indeed wrong. BUT, That only matters when it comes to actually modding out a Production Drone. Equipment that comes standard does not have to follow any such conventions.

Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.